Contact Us

Contact Better Bike

Earth Day 2012 table

Mark Elliot at the Better Bike table for Earth Day 2012

Do you feel unsafe riding a bicycle in Beverly Hills? Have you been involved in a collision in Beverly Hills? Have you been seriously injured? We want to know! We will communicate your story to policymakers and transportation officials in order to make our city more bike-friendly. Let us if we can help!

Remember that City Hall needs to hear from you directly, too. The next time you hit a big pothole, or get sideswiped by a motorist, can’t find a bike rack or are generally are fed up with the sorry state of cycling here in Beverly Hills, pick up the phone to ask City Hall what our leaders are doing to keep cyclists safe. Find a list of handy numbers below!

Powered by Fast Secure Contact Form

Key Contact Numbers for Beverly Hills City Hall

  • City Council is the key policy-making body for Beverly Hills. Five Council members represent every district in the city (an at-large system) so you need to talk to more than just one. Reach the City Council at (310) 285-1013.
  • Public Works & Transportation oversees the infrastructure and programs that most affect cyclists. They also provide staff support to City Council regarding transportation policies and program. It is essential that they hear from you! Reach Transportation at (310) 285-2452.
  • Traffic & Parking Commission is advisory to City Council on matters related to traffic and parking. Reach the Traffic & Parking Commission staff at (310) 285-2452.
  • Recreation & Parks Commission oversees parks, cultural landmarks, and summer recreation programming. It is advisory to City Council. Reach Rec & Parks at (310) 285-2536.
  • Public Works Commission advises on big-ticket items like capital investment and even bike infrastructure. Reach a Public Works staffer at (310) 285-2462.
  • Planning Commission is the policy-setting body for land use and planning matters. It would be the body that handles parking set-asides, for example, and other project-level requirements. Reach a Planning staffer at (310) 285-1141.
  • Beverly Hills Unified School District enjoys significant power as a stand-alone body backed by a fat bond issue. Their facilities master planning process is underway and presents an opportunity to secure bike-friendly improvements. Contact the district at (310) 551-5100.

Let us know what you find out!

Recent Posts

NIMBYs Whiffed on Bike Lanes But Killed the Dog Park

Roxbury dog park visualization

This year northside Beverly Hills residents swung for the fences but whiffed when they tried to kill bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica (Council kept lanes on the table). But two years ago, the southwest NIMBYs scored a base by killing off a preliminary proposal for an off-leash dog run for Roxbury Park. And it took only a bunt: just five dog park opponents persuaded City Council to nix the whole idea… even though it came recommended by staff, was endorsed unanimously by the parks commission and was supported by local dog-keepers.

The Backstory

The city had been looking to create a dog park for years. Dogs need outdoor recreation, of course, and every morning dogs of all stripes make the trek to one or another city park. But no Beverly Hills park is a place to run a dog: like every inch of the city, our parks are no-go for off-leash activity; a substantial fine awaits those who flout the law. But an off-leash dog area would give our furry friends a place to roam.

Nearby cities already provide dog parks. Moreover, they provide this amenity for Beverly Hills residents too. Popular dog park destinations for our pooches include Brentwood, Culver City, West Hollywood, and Rancho Park. But none is within walking distance. That makes a dog park a no-brainer, right? City Council even elevated the dog park search to an ‘A’ level priority this year:

City Council dog park priority ABut back in 2012 parks staff had already evaluated local options and recommended a dog park for Roxbury. It is the best choice of the options, staff said. Conveniently, the park’s unused croquet court (below) is not close to any park-adjacent apartments and is buffered from homes to the north by Olympic Boulevard. And like the adjacent unused putting green, this forlorn field cries out for re-purposing.

Roxbury croquet court todayNext, the Recreation and Parks Commission evaluated the Roxbury Park option and the commissioners unanimously agreed. The commission then sent it on to City Council.

But what do dog-keepers think about the idea? Generally, residents support creating an off-leash area by a 4:1 margin, but is Roxbury the right place? When staff held a meeting at Roxbury Park to present it, dog park supporters outnumbered opponents. But when the proposal came back to Council, however, some opponents spoke against it. The theme: Hey, we love dogs but don’t put a dog park in my backyard. Classic NIMBY!

Yet NIMBYs adhered to the usual playbook. They raised parking, public safety, noise and property values concerns. One homeowner worried about new people making our park “a destination.” That would take up precious parking spaces and, as another speaker cautioned, tax our limited police patrols.

Ken Goldman, Southwest Homeowners Association president, said he polled his association and “100% of responses were opposed.” Beverly/Roxbury Homeowners Association president Steve Dahlerbruch chimed in. “We polled our homeowners association and we got the overwhelming response, ‘We don’t want it in our area.'” For good measure Mr. Dahlerbruch added, “I live on Olympic and every day dog owners leave (crap) on my lawn.”

That’s the nimby cry: “We don’t want it in our area.” “Not in my backyard.” And of course the property values argument: “I want to preserve the residential nature of this community,” said homeowner Rochelle Ginsburg. “I will protect what I value.” How many such speakers did it take to put the kibosh on the Roxbury dog park idea? Just five.

But this area of the park is in nobody’s backyard. Nevertheless, after hearing from them our City Council simply nixed the proposal. And ever since, this unused croquet court has withered on the vine (n fact, the entire northern tier of this park is typically underused except by dog walkers).

For just twenty-thousand bucks we could have a dog park (according to staff estimates). Let’s put that in perspective: West Hollywood’s City Council is committed to building its second dog park and is poised to budget $750k for it as part of the West Hollywood Park phase II renovation.

In the meanwhile here in Beverly Hills, the a dog park  option – at a site located in the industrial section of the city, near Maple Drive – inches forward. But slowly: City Council gave the OK to test the environmentally contaminated parcel last summer, but no report has yet come forward. (Construction is expected to be completed by the end of the year, marking three-plus years of talking about a dog park.)
We ask you: would you rather take your dog out to play in a lovely park only a short walk from your home, or drive to run your pooch on an environmentally-remediated parcel to run your dog?

Friends of Roxbury Dog Park

In the weeks leading up to last weekend’s dog-friendly Woofstock event, a campaign coalesced to bring the Roxbury proposal back to City Council. Friends of Roxbury Park agree with staff and the Rec and Parks Commission that Roxbury is the best option for the city’s first dog park. But it need not be the only one: dogs need outdoor recreation whether they reside in the north, southwest or southeast part of the city. A few months ago, at a preliminary meeting for the redesign of La Cienega Park, we suggested the city include a dog area.

Roxbury dog park visualization

Roxbury Park’s croquet court repurposed as an off-leash dog area (illustration courtesy Friends of Roxbury Dog Park)

Letting just five NIMBYs nix a good idea like a dog park for Roxbury should feel like a thorn in the paw for every dog and dog-keeper. Just as we can’t let a few negative voices tank bike lanes for Santa Monica Boulevard, we shouldn’t let a few NIMBYs and homeowner association despots dictate the use of a city park either.

  1. Tracking Hazards and Collisions: Maps and More Maps! Comments Off
  2. Are You a ‘Team Player’? Traffic Commission Has Two Vacancies Comments Off
  3. Our 1977 Bicycle Master Plan: Will It Ever Be Updated? Comments Off
  4. Is a Mandatory Bike Helmet Law the Answer? Comments Off
  5. Beverly Hills OKs Bike-share Feasibility Study Comments Off
  6. File Under ‘Crap Facilities': Dangerous Crescent Dr. Sharrows [Updated] 3 Replies
  7. Beverly Hills Should Take the Foxx US DOT Challenge Comments Off
  8. TPC Commissioner Alan Gruschow Passes Comments Off
  9. Bike Share for Beverly Hills? Comments Off
  10. Recapping the Recappers: How Local Media Covered SM Blvd 1 Reply
  11. News Flash! City Council Keeps Bike Lanes on the Table 5 Replies
  12. LA Councilman’s Hostility Toward Complete Streets Sounds Familiar 14 Replies
  13. Passing Safely: It’s the Law! 1 Reply